Re: [PATCH 0/2] git-am: add --message-id/--no-message-id options
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 25, 2014, 20:05 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqoarvrqoo.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <5474D582.9060604@gnu.org>
Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org> writes:
Show 25 quoted lines
> On 25/11/2014 19:33, Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> > If both --message-id and -s are specified, the Signed-off-by goes >>> > last. This is coming out more or less naturally out of the git-am >>> > implementation, but is also tested in t4150-am.sh. >> Nice. So if you apply a message whose last sign-off is yourself >> with both of these options, what would we see? >> >> 1. S-o-b: you and then M-id: and then another S-o-b: you? >> 2. M-id: and then S-o-b: you? >> 3. S-o-b: you and then M-id:? >> >> I do not offhand know which one of the above possibilities to favor >> more over others myself. Just asking to find out more about the >> thinking behind the design. > > You currently get (1), which is arguably the most precise but definitely > the ugliest. > > In this case (posting as maintainer), I would probably not use "git am > --message-id"; instead I would use an alias to add the Message-Id (with > git interpret-trailers!) after posting to the mailing list, resulting in > either (2) or (3). > > I think (but I am not sure) that git-am could use a hook to rewrite (1) > into (2) or (3).
I actually do not think (1) is more (or less for that matter) ugly compared to either of the others.
Thanks. Let's queue these two series for the next cycle.